Georgia Enacts Bill Affording Franchisors Protection from Employee Misclassification Suits

Contributed by Deborah S. Weiss

 

 

The Georgia Legislature recently enacted legislation that should send an encouraging signal to franchisors. House Bill 548 was passed unanimously in both the State House of Representatives and the State Senate, making Georgia the first state to adopt legislation that prohibits a franchisee from being considered an employee of its franchisor. The legislation, which classifies the franchisee/franchisor relationship as a contractual relationship rather than an employment relationship, is the result of coordinated efforts by the IFA and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), to formally characterize the franchise relationship. Prior to the enactment of HB 548, ALEC adopted a Resolution on the Misallocation of Employee Classification Laws, which served as a precursor to the Georgia legislation.

 

The new Georgia law, which is codified as part of Georgia's workers' compensation law, states that “[i]ndividuals who are parties to a franchise agreement as set out by the Federal Trade Commission Franchise Disclosure Rule [FTC Rule] [PDF], 16 C.F.R. 436.1 through 436.11, shall not be deemed employees for purposes of this chapter.” Although this legislation protects franchisors from liability for workers' compensation claims made by their franchisees, it is not clear whether the new law will settle the question of the franchisee/franchisor relationship for all purposes, such as questions of agency or tort liability. Certainly, the step taken by the Georgia legislature is an encouraging development for those entrepreneurs considering whether to adopt the franchise model for their businesses, and for all franchisors wishing to offer franchises in the State of Georgia.

Legislatures in California and Massachusetts Table Potentially Troubling Franchise Legislation; Action in Vermont Still Expected this Year

Contributed by Tom Kent

            After successfully passing through California’s Judicial Committee, the Level Playing Field of Small Businesses Act failed to pass through the California Assembly Business, Professions and Consumer Protections Committee. The legislation, which adopts the central themes of the Universal Franchisee Bill of Rights, has crystallized debate on several fundamental differences between franchisors, franchisees and their respective industry trade associations. While the debate in California of whether California’s existing franchise laws require revision will continue, the California legislature will take no further action this year.

 

            Similarly, in Massachusetts the bill known as “An Act Further Regulating Franchise Agreements” was placed in study, thereby putting further legislative action on hold for one year. A vote on Vermont’s “An Act Relating to Franchise Agreements” is expected this year. Taken as a whole, the proposed legislation in Massachusetts and Vermont are not as comprehensive as the Level the Playing Field for Small Businesses Act. However, there are many similarities and consistent themes that echo the previously mentioned Universal Franchisee Bill of Rights. For example, the bills all contain provisions that would afford franchisees protection from “encroachment” by franchisors. In the Vermont and California bills, franchisees would have a cause of action against a franchisor for placing a new outlet in “unreasonable proximity” of an existing location if the new outlet has an adverse effect on gross sales. Of course, “unreasonable proximity” is not a defined term, leaving the determination of reasonableness to lawyers and judges in litigation that would likely follow passage of either bill. In Massachusetts, the proposed law states simply that if a franchisor develops a new location which has an adverse impact on the gross sales of an existing franchisee, the franchisor may be liable for damages. Note, there is no mention of proximity to an existing location! This ambiguity can only serve to tee up litigation in Massachusetts.

 

            Another common theme in the bills is freedom of association. That is, the bills provide that franchisees would be free from prohibitions from associating with trade associations and that franchisors could not retaliate against franchisees for such association. I can’t see the franchisor community lining up in opposition to this concept. However, California’s bill takes one giant step further and would prohibit franchisors from “refusing to recognize and deal fairly with and in good faith with any independent franchisee association.” Can you say protracted litigation? If this language remains in the bill, you can bet that franchisors and their representatives will be voicing strong opposition to this overly broad and ambiguous “requirement.”

 

            While the California and Massachusetts bills have failed to receive sufficient support for passage this year, I fully expect to see each bill resurface for future consideration. As promised, Fox will continue to monitor these and other legislative efforts that may impact the franchise community.

Vermont and Arizona Consider New Franchise Legislation

Both Vermont and Arizona are proposing legislation in 2012 that would further regulate the relationship between franchisors, franchisees, and business opportunities.

The Vermont legislature has introduced a bill in its House of Representatives which proposes to do the following:

  1. Define a franchise and restrict the circumstances under which a franchisor may terminate a franchisee prior to the expiration of a franchise agreement to "good cause".
  2. Impose a duty of good faith on parties to a franchise agreement.
  3. Prohibit franchisors from restricting a franchisee's right to associate.
  4. Outline further regulations on transfers, sales, and encroachment issues.

The bill (House Bill 694) is currently pending before the Commerce and Economic Development Committee of the Vermont House of Representatives

Arizona legislators have also introduced legislation which would require the registration of sellers of business opportunities and the disclosure of certain information in the form of a disclosure document.  Under House Bill 2825, a seller would be required to present the disclosure document to a potential purchaser at least 5 business days prior to execution of a contract or collection of any money.  Like many similar state business opportunity laws, the law would provide an exemption for the sale of franchises as defined under the FTC Rule.

Both the Vermont and Arizona bills are in the early stages but we will report on further movement through the legislation as it may arise.  

Part II: YourTrademark.xxx (or .sex or .porn or .adult)

Last fall, I blogged a bit about the introduction of the ".xxx" web domain, and how it would be important for franchise companies to protect their vital brands and trademarks by either opting out before the deadline (now passed) or registering those brands and trademarks in the .xxx domain themselves.

The .xxx domain has apparently been a success, and the same company that brought it to the internet now wants to add .sex, .porn, and .adult domains as well.

Given this "success" (which I readily acknowledge is a relative term), I was wondering what was happening when owners of brands and trademarks challenged a .xxx registration. In looking, I stumbled upon an excellent piece from Anthony Lupo and Amy Salomon at Arent Fox on just this topic.

Mr. Lupo and Ms. Salomon looked at 17 arbitration cases that had been filed before either the World Intellectual Property Association or the National Arbitration Forum in the six months since the .xxx domain went active. While admittedly early in the enforcement phase, it is emerging that registrations made by entities who are not members of the adult entertainment industry and who are not actively commercializing or otherwise making use of the domain name will be terminated or transferred.

While this is good news, a question remains as to what will happen when the registrant is a member of the adult entertainment industry and/or is commercializing the site. My advice? Don't wait. Exert control over your brand and trademarks by registering them with the .xxx domain, and consider doing the same with the .sex, . porn, and .adult domains. Your brand to too valuable and the solution is too easy.

Florida Franchisee Liable for Back Wages

We all were recently reminded of an important lesson: Franchisees must not forget that training time is usually paid time for non-exempt employees.  Last week, a Subway franchisee with 29 locations in the Tampa Bay, Fla., area was ordered to pay 122 employees $11,000 in minimum back wages and damages after Judge Richard Lazzara of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division entered a Consent Judgment and Order against Franchise Equity Group, Inc.

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) filed the minimum wage violation suit against the Subway franchisee after an investigation uncovered that it was not paying employees at least the minimum wage to attend "Sandwich Artist Certification" training.   

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) [PDF] requires that an employer pay any employee in an enterprise engaged in commerce at least the federal minimum wage for every hour worked in addition to one and one-half times their regular rates for hours worked over 40 each week.  The DOL's Wage and Hour Division has authority to investigate potential violations of the FLSA minimum wage provisions. 

All time spent by an employee performing job-related activities is potentially "work time" and this includes mandatory training and training related to the performance of the employee's current job.  There are very limited circumstances when training is not counted as work time. Franchisees found violating the FLSA risk lawsuits by the DOL where a judge may award back wages and damages to employees, including liquidated damages. 

This case contains lessons for both franchisors and franchisees.  Government regulators do not look kindly to businesses who--they believe--"exploit" "vulnerable" and "low-wage workers."  Franchisees should regularly review their payroll and attendance policies to reflect compliance with the FLSA.   In addition, franchisors should make clear in their franchise agreements that the franchisee is responsible for the cost of employee training, including compensation to employees.  This will help assure that a franchisor will not become vicariously liable for the acts of a rogue franchisee. 
 

 

Re-Released for Comment - NASAA Proposed Model Exemptions

As we reported in July 2011, the North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA) last year proposed "Model Franchise Exemptions" relating to state franchise registration and disclosure laws.  The original Proposal was made public last summer and the NASAA accepted comments for the Proposal through August 1, 2011.   

After analyzing the comments, the NASAA’s Franchise and Business Opportunity Project Group today re-released for comment the proposed changes to NASAA’s Model Franchise Exemptions.   The substantive changes to the Model Franchise Exemptions include:

  1. placing a 1-year expiration date to the proposed Fractional Franchise Exemption to make the exemption any annual filing;
  2. eliminating the requirement that the regulator find a "reasonable basis" for anticipating sales volumes to qualify for the Fractional Franchise Exemption and instead adding a requirement that both franchisor and franchisee must be capable of demonstrating that franchisee can derive 80% of total dollar volume of sales independent of franchise relationship;  
  3. prohibiting a franchisor utilizing the Experienced Franchisor Exemption from having a going concern paragraph (footnote) in its financial statements;
  4. allowing a subsidiary franchisor to submit a sworn affidavit that its shareholders/members have equity of not less than $1,000,000 to establish the Experienced Franchisor Exemption where the franchisor does not prepare its own financials; 
  5. removed the financial statement specifications necessary for certain purchasers to claim the Sophisticated Franchisee (Accredited Investor); and
  6. made the requirement that a franchisee claiming the Sophisticated Franchisee (Accredited Investor) have legal counsel optional for each state.

The comment period is 30 days so anyone wishing to provide comments must submit them to the Chair of the Project Group, Dale Cantone or NASAA Counsel, Joseph Opron, on or before May 16, 2012. 

 

The "Do Not Track" Button: If only a large office supply chain could start making those as well.

By now, you have almost certainly seen the reports that the White House and the Federal Trade Commission want a Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights with seven principles:

  • Individual Control: Consumers have a right to exercise control over what personal data companies collect from them and how they use it.
  • Transparency: Consumers have a right to easily understandable and accessible information about privacy and security practices.
  • Respect for Context: Consumers have a right to expect that companies will collect, use, and disclose personal data in ways that are consistent with the context in which consumers provide the data.
  • Security: Consumers have a right to secure handling of personal data.
  • Access and Accuracy: Consumers have a right to access and correct personal data in usable formats, in a manner that is appropriate to the sensitivity of the data and the risk of adverse consequence to consumers if the data is inaccurate.
  • Focused Collection: Consumers have a right to reasonable limits on the personal data that companies collect and retain.
  • Accountability: Consumers have a right to have personal data handled by companies with appropriate measures in place to assure they adhere to the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights.

 Today, the FTC took a significant step toward establishing a framework that would implement that last principle, Accountability. In outlining the new framework, the FTC report (PDF) suggested several significant changes for businesses who interact with consumers online:

 

First, the FTC expects consumers will have an “easy to use and effective ‘Do Not Track’ option by the end of the year.” According to the Washington Post, the FTC, the Commerce Department and the Digital Media Alliance are working together to create a one-click icon that will permit consumers an easy way to “opt-out” of online tracking. The Digital Advertising Alliance represents 90 percent of all web sites with advertising.

 

Second, the FTC urged companies offering mobile services to voluntarily improve privacy protections, including in particular, the retrieval and storage of location information. As the Wall Street Journal (subscription required) noted under the headline "Your Apps are Watching You", over one-half of tested mobile apps sent unique ID or location information without informing the app user first.

 

Third, FTC called on big data brokers to develop a centralized website that would allow people to view all the entities that hold their data and how that data is used. The FTC also called for the passage of legislation that will allow people to view their data and correct inaccuracies, similar to what is currently permitted for credit reports. As previously announced, the FTC will continue to bring enforcement actions against companies that engage in deceptive or unfair practices.

 

Finally, and of particular interest to the franchise community, while the framework applies to all commercial entities that collect or use consumer data that can be linked to a specific consumer, computer, or other device, the FTC report explicitly recognizes “the potential burden on small businesses” and accordingly “concludes that the framework should not apply to companies that collect and do not transfer only non-sensitive data from fewer than 5,000 consumers a year.” The details of this “small business” option will need to be fleshed out and seem narrow upon initial review.  For example, the Commission defines “non-sensitive data” as data that is not a Social Security number or financial, health, children’s, or geolocation information.

 

There was a dissent from the report by Commissioner Thomas Rosch. The dissent seems principally concerned that the framework is too focused on what consumers may believe is unfair, as opposed to what is actually deceptive. It also noted that the recommendations probably aren’t voluntary in practice, because most firms will feel obliged to comply the proposed best practices or face the wrath of the FTC.

 

As expected for several years now, the FTC has staked out a strong position in favor of “opt-in” online privacy controls for consumers combined with substantial transparency regarding how personal information gathered online will be used. The good news is that the framework is voluntary and permits significant industry involvement in crafting best practices. The bad news, as Commissioner Rosch correctly notes, is that the FTC report and rhetoric strongly implies that adoption of the best practices will be nearly mandatory and that it will enforce those practices against those who opt-in.

California District Court Rules in Favor of Janitorial Franchisor

Unlike many recent franchisee-friendly decisions relating to the employee/employer relationship, the District Court of Northern California recently ruled in favor of a janitorial and cleaning maintenance franchise system.

The franchisees of Jani-King of California, Inc. in Juarez v. Jani-King of California, Inc.  were unable to establish their claims against the franchisor under California labor laws and the California Franchise Investment Law (CFIL). Accordingly, the District Court granted Jani-King's Motion for Summary Judgment.

The Jani-King franchisees argued that they were fraudulently induced to enter a franchise system where Jani-King evaded paying wages and job benefits yet retained the control of an employer/employee business arrangement.  The District Court disagreed.  Evidence provided by Jani-King established that franchisees had discretion to hire and fire employees, decline customer accounts, and purchase their own supplies.  

The franchisees also brought claims under the CFIL allegeding that Jani-King made false earnings claims, misrepresented the amount of work available, failed to disclose fees and costs properly, and failed to provide language translations of required contracts. The District Court barred the allegations under the parol evidence rule as they were contradicted by the terms of the franchise agreement signed by the franchisees.   The court also ruled the allegations time barred by the applicable state statute of limitations.

This is a positive development for franchisors who have feared that neighboring courts may follow the recent Coverall decisions of Massachusetts.  We will continue to monitor and report new decisions as disgruntled janitorial franchisees continue to bring cases under various state franchise relationship and labor laws.   

Franchisors Preparing for the Future: What do you do when Baby Boomer Franchisees Retire?

It is a special business where, in this economy, same-store global sales are up 7.5% percent, but the stock price still falls 3.3% on the news. But that is what happened to McDonald's yesterday. Reuters reports that the cold winter in Europe combined with continuing concerns for the health of the European economy depressed sales in Europe, leading to the 0.2% miss in sales growth. (Analysts had expected same-store growth of 7.7%.)

What is frankly more fascinating to me, though, is how McDonald's is planning for the future retirement of thousands of its Baby Boomer franchisees--and what the franchise community might learn from the McDonald's experience. Helpfully, Julie Jargon of the Wall Street Journal authored a Page 1 report published yesterday under the title: "'Super Size Me' Generation Takes Over at McDonald's" (subscription required).

The article reports that 30% of McDonald's U.S. franchisees are now "next generation"--meaning they are the children of franchisees. McDonald's--in keeping with its high standards--does not allow pure nepotism. Instead, children of franchisees go through a several year process of proving themselves before they can become approved franchisees themselves.

Perhaps not surprisingly, younger franchisees have led the push for Wi-Fi in their restaurants, credit card acceptance, a presence on social media, greater community involvement and longer hours. That last item was a big surprise to McDonald's corporate management. Jim Johannesen, McDonald's USA chief operating officer, is quoted in the article saying, "Our young people helped us understand that there's a lot more going on when the rest of us are sleeping than we would have known".

The article is a fascinating look at how one of the most respected franchisors is preparing for the future--and is, in fact, already benefitting from its younger franchisees. We definitely recommend a read. 

California Dreamin' on Such a Winter's Day: Is Proposed California Franchise Legislation a Dream or a Nightmare?

Contributed by Tom Kent

Legislation has been introduced in California that would significantly expand the protections afforded to franchisees under California’s Franchise Relations Act and California’s Franchise Investment Law. Assembly Bill No. 2305 known as “The Level Playing Field For Small Business Act of 2012” should be grabbing the attention of the franchise community, if it hasn't already. Section 1 of the proposed bill begins: “The widespread use of one-sided and nonnegotiable franchise agreements has created numerous problems for franchisees in California.” What follows is perhaps the most aggressive legislative effort to date to constrain franchisors’ contractual rights and remedies.

As drafted, the Act would modify the California Franchise Relations Act by, among other things; prohibiting a franchisor from terminating a franchise absent good cause that consists of a substantial material breach of the franchise agreement; providing the franchisee sixty (60) days after receiving written notice to cure monetary defaults (expanding the existing five (5) day cure period); requiring the franchisor to renew a franchise under the same terms as the existing franchise agreement absent a substantial and material breach of the franchise agreement by the franchisee; and, prohibiting the franchisor from enforcing any covenant not to compete upon the expiration or termination of a franchise agreement.

 

Further, the Act expands the California Franchise Relations Act to require that franchisees and franchisors deal with one another in good faith. Good Faith is defined as “honesty in fact and the observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing in trade.” The Act would further subject franchisors to a duty of competence to franchisees “regarding all goods, services, programs, advertising, and operating manuals required to be used or provided to franchisees for their use.”  The Act would render void any provision in a franchise agreement that requires an application of a law other than that of California.

 

The Franchise Investment Law would be expanded to make it unlawful for any person selling a franchise to misrepresent the prospects or chances for success of a franchise, the known required total investment for a franchise as well as efforts to establish more franchises than a market can sustain. The Act requires that franchisors deal fairly and in good faith with independent franchisee associations. Significantly, the Act would extend civil liability for damages for any violation under the Franchise Investment Law to parties who “directly or indirectly control a person liable” under the Act including every principal, partner, executive officer and/or director associated with the franchisor.

 

At its core, “The Level Playing Field for Small Business Act of 2012” is driven by the perception that the franchisor/franchisee relationship is inherently inequitable, placing the franchisee at a tremendous disadvantage. The contrary view is that the franchise relationship is one based in contract that an individual franchisee may choose to enter, or not. Depending upon your outlook, you may view this proposed legislation as a necessary expansion of existing law in California, or, as the latest effort by a legislative body to curtail free enterprise. In either case, we will be sure to keep an eye on this pending legislation as it progresses through the California Legislature and provide updates as they occur.

FTC April 30th Updating Deadline Approaching for Calendar Year Franchisors

The FTC requires a franchisor to update its franchise disclosure document (FDD) within 120 days of the close of its fiscal year.  The April 30th deadline is fast approaching for franchisors who completed their fiscal year on December 31st.  At the end of the 120 day period, the franchisor may only offer and sell using the updated FDD.  In addition, many states franchise renewal laws also work off the same fiscal year deadlines. 

By March, franchisors should be near completing the process gathering the information necessary to update the FDD and submitting that information to their legal counsel.  Below are 3 quick tips franchisors should follow to ensure they meet the deadlines:

(1) Keep in contact with your accountants or finance division and remind them that the audited financials must be completed before April 30th.  Many delays in updating an FDD will be the result of  auditors not having adequate time to prepare the financials.  For franchisors filing state registration renewals the deadline for the audit may be sooner.  Some states require that renewal registration applications be filed days or weeks in advance of the 120 day deadline.

(2) Begin compiling the additional information needed to update your FDD in an organized and complete manner.   This includes changes to executive personnel, disclosure of new ligitation, and current franchise sales data for the 2011 year. 

(3) Make sure that the outside or in-house counsel responsible for overseeing the final updates or filing state renewals are provided with accurate draft documents and other information with ample time to review, revise, comment, and finalize.  Seasoned franchise counsel should have a streamlined system in place for handling updates and renewals.  The starting place to this process, however, is getting accurate information from the franchisor. 

Failing to update or file renewal registrations on time can impede a franchisor's ability to offer and sell.  Therefore, it is important to get a head start on the process to give all parties involved adequate lead time.

Getting Funded in "This Economy"

We, like many of you, were just at the IFA Convention in Orlando earlier this month. There we all saw many great franchise growth opportunities. We also discussed and debated the continuing travails of getting funded in "This Economy" when credit remains extremely tight. As you might recall, this blog has covered this ground a little bit before.

While true, it seems too obvious to say we are hopeful that the gathering speed of the economy will solve this problem--especially when the economy gathered speed in the first quarters of both 2010 and 2011 only to stumble thereafter. And home prices continue to fall, eliminating home equity as a funding source. Nonetheless, opportunities exist and franchise growth awaits. So, what is a nimble franchise system to do?

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal by Emily Maltby might suggest an answer that question. Admittedly, the focus of the article is on start-up businesses. But, after all, what are new franchises but start-up businesses (of course, start-up businesses coupled with a powerful brand and uniform system standards)? Ms. Maltby disects several options for getting funded right now, including peer lending and crowdfunding, asset-based credit, the SBA, and angel investors.

This last option is intriguing. Whle anecdotal, recent conversations with a handful of angel investors who have mostly sat on the sidelines during the last 3 years suggest to me that they are getting antsy and interested in returning to the investing fray--either individually or through syndicates. Given that many startups carry greater risk than proven franchise concepts, I am hopeful that more angel investors will take a fresh look at franchising investment opportunities.

What Does Our Online Privacy Policy Say About Apps?

Compliance with online privacy rules just got a little more complicated. The Wall Street Journal is reporting late this afte© Can Stock Photo Inc. / iqonceptrnoon that California Attorney General Kamala Harris has reached an agreement with six leading mobile device companies regarding privacy policies for apps.  The companies who agreed to the settlement are the largest in the sphere: Apple, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, HP, and RIM.

While details appear to be sketchy at this point, the key change is that all apps offered through platforms for the companies' devices will now be required to have a privacy policy. There is no timetable yet for implementation of the policy, but the Attorney General said that she will enforce the settlement and prosecute companies without policies or who use personal information in violation of their policies. While the settlement applies in California only, it is expected that the policies will be uniform across all devices and for all states.

This settlement appears to represent only the latest government effort to monitor and regulate personal information online.  Of course, the Facebook settlement last fall was substantial. Some members of Congress have demanded hearings respecting announced changes in Google's privacy policies.  And just in the last week it was disclosed that the FTC is investigating background check companies for violations of their privacy policies and the Fair Credit Reporting Act.  Given the current regulatory environment, ensuring that privacy policies for information franchisors and franchisees collect online are complete, and followed completely, is essential.

Franchising Drives the Lane, Goes Long and Slips One through the Five Hole

When I am traveling, I use the time--like I suspect most people do as well--to catch-up on my reading. Coming back from the IFA Convention in Orlando allowed me to read the February issue of Entrepreneur Magazine. Many of you know that Entrepreneur is a favorite of mine because it provides a fair and balanced look at franchising.

I was particularly excited about Entrepreneur's profile of the Professional Athletes Franchise Initiative (PAFI) in the February issue. Now, in full disclosure, Fox Rothschild is a charter member of PAFI. We have joined with PAFI because we believe in its goal of becoming a bridge between professional athletes looking for post-career entrepreneurial opportunities and the franchising community.

As the article explains, PAFI does not sugarcoat franchising; indeed, it strives to demonstrate through seminars and franchise boot camps that becoming a successful franchise owner takes dedication, perseverance and plain old hard work. These are of course character traits that professional athletes have already demonstrated they have in spades. Especially in a time where the growth of many franchise systems is limited by lack of credit, franchisors are rightly excited by the prospect of partnering with dedicated individuals who often have access to significant pools of investment cash.

Consider Cyber Risk Insurance for Data Breaches

For many people, insurance coverage issues trigger instant narcolepsy.   Insurance policies are long and dull and extraordinarily confusing.  For those and other reasons, businesses don’t often think about their coverage and what types of perils are excluded from their insurance policies until something bad happens. At that point, it is too late and you are stuck with whatever coverage (or lack of coverage) your insurance provides.

 

We recently blogged about the arrest of dozens of waiters who allegedly skimmed customer credit cards numbers as part of a $1 million profit identity theft ring, how businesses can be held liable to customers for such damages, and the growing trend in the law to allow recovery for foreseeable risk stemming from credit card theft--even if no actual out of pocket loss has occurred.  The possible exposure of franchisees to these types of data breach claims should have franchisors reviewing the insurance requirement provisions in their franchise agreements and operations manuals, and franchisees discussing proper coverages with their brokers.

 

Most franchise agreements require a franchisor to maintain at least a few million dollars of “general liability insurance.” General liability insurance covers such perils as property damage, personal injury, advertising injury, and products liability.  It is considered the general business insurance that covers most risks.  A franchisor will also likely require separate automobile policies, worker's compensation, and an umbrella or excess policy. One of the most important things about an insurance policy, moreover, is that it also pays for the services of a lawyer, which is an important consideration as even getting an unworthy case dismissed can be expensive.

 

None of these policies however, typically cover data breaches without an endorsement specifically covering the risk.  “Cyber liability” is a form of coverage that has developed over the past decade to protect against identity theft and data breaches. Unfortunately as technology advances, criminals continue to create new ways to steal identities and information.  Cyber liability coverage can protect both losses suffered by franchisees as well as losses suffered by customers or other third parties.  Without proper--and adequate--coverage the costs to remedy a serious data breach, including notifying all possible affected customers under state law [PDF], hiring consultants to determine the extent of a breach, and possible damage claims could put a franchisee out of business.

 

Franchisors and franchisees alike should consider contacting an insurance broker to discuss cyber liability coverage and whether it is advisable for the franchisor to require such coverage of its franchisees.  Given the growing risk of cyber theft, the cost to franchisees of the annual premium for such coverage is likely well worth it.